Louisiana Governor Seals Oil-Spill Records, page 1

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:15 PM

link

For more than two months, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has made it clear that he considers the response of the federal government and BP to the gulf oil leak a failure on many fronts.

But elected officials in Louisiana and members of the public seeking details on how Mr. Jindal and his administration fared in their own response to the disaster are out of luck: late last week the governor vetoed an amendment to a state bill that would have made public all records from his office related to the oil spill.

The measure was proposed by Senator Robert Adley, a Republican, and easily passed the Democrat-controlled Legislature. He told the Associated Press that the veto was a “black eye” on the state. “This governor has opposed transparency for the three years he’s been in office,” he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source:
green.blogs.nytimes.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/13884884e04a.jpg[/atsimg]

Why would he seal the records if he has nothing to hide, either for himself or for BP. I tend to think that it is for the latter. Does the State of Louisiana know something about the oil spill that the rest of us don't, either how or why it happened? It wouldn't seem that Louisiana would have anything to hide as far as the state's position on the clean-up and containment, which leads me to believe that they are in "kahoots" with BP, a large financier of the boot-shaped state. Does Jindal know what actually happened or even why it happened? Is there a conspiracy here or is this just a simple case of covering up a screw up?

--airspoon

apacheman

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:20 PM

link

I hope that veto is overridden.

I've never been much impressed with Jindal, and this action removes any doubt about his incompetence. We need calrity and transparency more than ever, and his hiding factual information from the public speaks either to his own criminal inompetence or his criminal collusion with a criminal corporation.

Either way, he's wrong and should be impeached and removed immediately, to be replaced by someone who isn't owned by BP.

~Lucidity

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:23 PM

link

How very odd. What you say might tie into the sentiment expressed in the story the other day about the people of Louisiana still being for the drilling despite the disaster and risks.

It really does make it appear that all his talk about the federal government might have been lip service and redirection of focus. Maybe the federal government was right to stay out of it and let it play out. What really could they have been doing? (This is still really at a local level in my opinion.)

Now his actions seem those of a man backed into a corner. What else could explain such a seemingly bone headed move?

airspoon

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:50 PM

link

reply to post by ~Lucidity

I can understand the people of Southern Louisiana being for drilling, because the off-shore oil industry is huge down there. If you take away both fishing and drilling, then you leave Southern Louisiana completely out of industry. It's even bigger than taking the auto industry out of Michigan because at least some people in Michigan work outside of the industry, unlike Southern Louisiana with fishing and drilling. Probably 95 percent of people would be out of work and the state would lose all of its revenue.

--airspoon